Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds beyond this by specifying the output is a citable document and that the tool is for deep-research/Responses-API compatibility, which is useful context. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no waste. The main action is stated first, followed by clarification on the parameter and an alternative. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is ideal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is fully complete. It explains the purpose, the input format, the output type, and alternatives. No gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers the 'id' parameter with a description, and the description reinforces this by explaining it is a sponsor domain from search and providing an example. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema alone, and with 100% coverage, the baseline is 3, so a 4 is warranted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a 'Sponsorable profile' as a 'citable document', using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_sponsor' by noting that one returns structured JSON, ensuring no confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an explicit alternative ('For a structured JSON profile use get_sponsor instead'), guiding the agent on when to use this tool versus the sibling. It lacks a broader 'when not to use' but covers the key alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.